vimfandomcom-20200223-history
Category talk:Candidates for deletion
Please use this page to discuss pages that have been labeled for deletion. Archives: [[/Archive1|'1']] • [[/Archive2|'2']] • [[/Archive3|'3']] • [[/Archive4|'4']] • [[/Archive5|'5']] • [[/Archive6|'6']] Use ptags to generate tags file for Python Deletion comment, by Godlygeek: "I can see no reason why this is useful, given that exuberant ctags supports python, and should run wherever python can." While I in general terms would support using exuberant ctags over any other hacked-together solution, I also know that sometimes a user does not have the ability or desire to install/configure/compile a new application on their computer. Or perhaps a user only works occasionally on a machine that has ptags but not exuberant ctags (which could happen very easily, since apparently ptags is included with Python distros). I think that this tip should be kept, but with a very prominent disclaimer at the beginning of the tip that exuberant ctags will do everything in the tip and more. --Fritzophrenic 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC) :I plan to tweak VimTip94 and include the content of this ptags tip in 94 (94 already has a list of programs that build tags for various languages, and the ptags tip is just a single line to add to that list). I intend to then replace the ptags tip with a redirect to 94. JohnBeckett 10:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Build Vim with your name included Deletion comment, by Godlygeek: "Can a ./configure switch *really* qualify as a tip?" I have not yet compiled Vim by myself, but when I finally get around to it, I think that I would love to know little tidbits like the one contained in this tip. That being said, I agree that this tip is a little weak. It does not apply to a very broad audience, nor is it at all useful (just kind of cool). I think we have a tip about compiling Vim. If not, then we should. Regardless, I think we should merge this tip into our "compiling Vim" tip rather than deleting it outright. --Fritzophrenic 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC) :OK. We have no tip on building, and this may as well be the place where we put an overview. I have reworded so it is good enough to keep at this stage. JohnBeckett 10:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Auto-fold Perl subs Deletion comment, by fritzophrenic: :It is much better to use the built-in functionality. Any remaining reasons to use this instead because of a buggy implementation in the syntax file are pretty much gone since the release of a patch that eliminates coding style from the folding. Although I originally tagged this tip for deletion, we should keep it until the patch mentioned becomes part of the official runtime file. Until then, all workarounds are probably valid. At the moment, there isn't an active Perl syntax script maintainer. --Fritzophrenic 21:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC) :OK. I have reworded so it is good enough to keep at this stage. JohnBeckett 10:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)